how to detect misinformation on the internet

Another problem with most checklists was pointed out first by Marc Meola [8]. Often, when
dealing with the questions on accuracy, the checklists ask:
Is the information reliable and error-free?
As noted by Meola, this question is at best a little naïve. To answer this very question is
precisely why the checklist method was applied in the first place. If one could answer the
question straight up, one would not need a checklist or any other method. Consequently, it
makes no sense <strong>to</strong> ask the question without further instructions on <strong>how</strong> the information seeker
is <strong>to</strong> go about answering it.
Consequently, the checklist method cannot stand alone. A supplementing technique is needed
in order <strong>to</strong> help answering the question of accuracy.
2.2 Comparative evaluation
Comparative evaluation is a method suited for answering the question of accuracy. If we try
<strong>to</strong> assess the quality of something, we find that we often need something <strong>to</strong> compare with.
How well does this wine taste? How beautiful is this scenery? How well does this dancer
perform? These questions are difficult <strong>to</strong> answer without comparing with other wines,
sceneries, or dancers. Comparative thinking plays a key role in almost all evaluation – also
when it comes <strong>to</strong> evaluating sources on the Internet. Comparative evaluation is all about
equating and verifying information from different sources. To illustrate the method, we will
again borrow an example from Marc Meola [8] who has advocated the use of comparative
evaluation over the checklist method.
Meola wanted <strong>to</strong> find out <strong>how</strong> many people got killed in the Mai Lai massacre during the
Vietnam War. He searched for “mai lai” on Google and found a page reporting the body
count <strong>to</strong> be 300. But can this number be trusted? To find out, Meola decided <strong>to</strong> double check
with other sources. He found another page reporting the count <strong>to</strong> be 347; a third reported the
count <strong>to</strong> be 500; a fourth reported the count <strong>to</strong> be 504. In other words, none of these numbers
can be taken for granted. We have <strong>to</strong> consult authoritative sources if we want <strong>to</strong> know the real
number of people who lost their lives. The point is that we only discover this if we double
check the information we find. Comparison and verification are therefore essential elements
when trying <strong>to</strong> answer the question of accuracy.
It will often be quite easy <strong>to</strong> double check information. The politician from New Zealand
could easily have found out that dihydrogen monoxide is nothing but plain water by a few
searches on Google. It would have taken just a little investigative reporting <strong>to</strong> find out that the
Cypriote fans in question wear traditional sports clothes and sing traditional football songs.
And when it comes <strong>to</strong> medical issues, it is of course the medical authorities that need <strong>to</strong> be
consulted.
4